In the field of cleaning it is well known that cleaning floors is often difficult to accomplish while conserving water and detergents, while also insuring that the subject floor adequately cleaned. Typically, floors are mopped using various types of conventional mop heads, the mop head being immersed in a volume of water and soap. Several gallons of water and a proportional amount of detergent are used to clean the floor. After the mop is immersed into the water and detergent, a portion of the liquid is squeezed from the mop head and the mop is then wiped across the floor to be cleaned. This leaves the floor wet for a period of time. After the mop head becomes soiled, or after the cleaning fluids have been used up, the mop head needs to be rinsed in the volume of water and detergent, and the process is repeated.
Wringer mops are well known in the art for augmenting the experience of rinsing the mop head. In some types of wringer mops, two operating rods on the exterior of the mop handle are used to pull the mop head through sets of wringer rollers to expel fluid from the sponge of the mop head. In other types of wringer mops, a single operating rod extends through the hollow handle of the mop to connect to the mop head. These types of mops generally include a ring insert placed within the handle to limit lateral movement of the rod within the handle. These mops have the problem in that they have a complicated design and, accordingly, are more fragile to use.
One example of a prior art mop, U.S. Pat. No. 6,212,728 to Facca, discloses a self-wringing ratchet mop. The '728 patent discloses a wall defining at least one pawl. Another example of a prior art mop, U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,869, to Libman, discloses a wringer mop. The '869 patent discloses a pawl on a ring that is resiliently fixed the handle, and a series of elongated ribs (spline) on a movable collar.
A problem with the arrangements of the above patents is that the pawl projections are incapable of flexing with the movement of the collar over the handle. Over time, the pawl projections suffer extensive shearing and are rendered useless.
Another example of a prior art mop, U.S. Pat. No. 5,509,163, to Morad, discloses a Quick Squeezing Wringable Mop. The '163 patent discloses a complex spring biased pawl, and an annular tie for connecting mop fibers to the collar. The complexity of the spring biased pawl and the intricate mounting of the pawl to the collar adversely affects manufacturing cost and time. The annual ties are brittle and have poor restraining qualities, causing the loss of necessary mop fibers.
Other examples of prior art mops include U.S. Pat. Nos. 1,514,051 and 1,520,500 to Jumonville, each disclosing a Mop. The patents teach a pole that holds one end of mop fibers and a handle that holds the other end of the mop fibers. The patents teach turning the handle about the pole to twist and wring the mop fibers.
The patents disclose a ratchet on the pole and a cylindrical button on the handle. The button is located within a slot. The slot has enough room to allow the button to move towards and away from the ratchet. When the button engages a peak in the ratchet contour, the button is pushed outwardly, away from the ratchet. Otherwise, the button is supposed to bias towards the ratchet so that the button and handle are allowed to advance in a singular direction. Accordingly, the mop fibers advance in a single direction to assist in the wringing process.
The 500' patent discloses a nail for controlling the maximum motion of the button in the handle. The 051' patent discloses manufacturing the button so that the inward portion has a lager diameter than the outer portion, thereby controlling the maximum motion of the button.
Both Jumonville inventions suffer from a fatal defect. Both inventions are disclosed as being made of metal. Accordingly, the metal button of both patents would move freely within the slot of the metal handle, unless biased by some means. However, neither patent discloses this bias means.
According to the disclosure of each Jumonville patent, the button in each handle would freely move outwardly from contacting the ratchet. This motion renders the handle incapable of being restrained from unintentionally unwinding the mop fibers. This motion would result from both of the contours of the ratchet, and the effect of gravity due to the normal use of the mop. Accordingly, both Jumonville patents are not described so that one skilled in the art can make and use the invention, and the patents are fatally invalid.
In comparison with the Jumonville patents, the present invention discloses a spline around the pole of the mop, rather than the ratchet of Jumonville. The present invention discloses a shaped pawl within the handle, rather than the cylindrical button. In the present invention, the pawl snuggly connects the pole of the handle, rather than fitting within a slot and being able to move towards and away from the spline.
The pawl flexes as it moves over the maximum spline contours, rather than moving away from the spline. As the pawl flexes, it absorbs energy. As the pawl rotationally advances over the spline, it advances towards lower contours. At the lower contours, the pawl flexes inwardly, towards the lower contours, and releases the stored energy, rather than requiring a means to bias the pawl against the spline. Accordingly, the pawl and handle are allowed to advance in a singular direction. As a result, the mop fibers advance in a single direction to assist in the wringing process.
According to the above analysis, Jumonville is not an enabling reference over the present invention. Furthermore, Jumonville teaches away from the present invention by requiring an extra means for biasing the button against the ratchet. In contrast, the pawl and spline in the present invention are capable of mutual engagement independent of any further biasing means.